Search

Purpose: To evaluate perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, and the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) of a single surgeon in 500 consecutive cases., Methods: Demographic parameters, outcomes, and adverse events were evaluated. The learning curve for HoLEP in en-bloc technique of the first 500 consecutive patients was analyzed in clusters of 100 (clusters 1-5) using the Wilcoxen rank test, Chi² test and Kruskal Wallis test., Results: Enucleation weight was similar in the clusters 1,2,3, and 5 (62 g, 63 g, 61 g, 61 g), in cluster 4 it was slightly higher at 73 g. There was a significant reduction in operating time from 67 min (cluster 1) to 57 min (cluster 2), 46 min (cluster 3), 53 min (cluster 4), and 43 min (cluster 5), p < 0.001. Enucleation efficiency (g/min) showed a steady increase (1.72, 2.24, 2.79, 2.92 vs. 2.99, p < 0.001). Laser energy efficiency also improved (2.17 vs. 2.12 vs. 1.71 vs. 1.65 vs. 1.55; p < 0.001). There was no measurable learning curve regarding the length of hospital stay (mean 2.5 days), catheterization time (1.9 days), hemoglobin drop (approx. 1 g/dl) or complications (p > 0.1)., Conclusions: HoLEP using the en-bloc technique is a safe and highly effective method. Over time, a slight but steady learning curve and improvement in operation time, enucleation efficiency and laser energy efficiency were shown even for an experienced surgeon - after 500 cases, still no plateau was reached. There was no measurable learning curve regarding blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Before holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), many patients have undergone short-term prostate biopsy (PB) to rule out the presence of prostate cancer. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short-term PB before HoLEP has an impact on the perioperative outcomes or complications of HoLEP. Methods: In total, 734 consecutive patients treated with HoLEP at a tertiary care university hospital between January 2021 and July 2023 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients who had PB within 6 months before HoLEP were matched to patients who underwent PB more than 6 months or had no PB before HoLEP using propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, prostate volume (PV), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), preoperative urinary tract infection (UTI), and surgeon. Perioperative parameters, such as operation time (OT), enucleation efficiency (EF), as well as complications according to the Satava classification, the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) were evaluated. Results: In total, 206 patients were matched. Age, PV, PSA, as well as the presence of a preoperative UTI and surgeons did not differ significantly between both groups after PSM. There were no significant differences in mean OT (75 vs. 81 minutes, p = 0.28) and EF (2.13 vs. 2.13 g/min, p = 0.99). No differences were noted regarding intraoperative (16 vs. 25, p = 0.16) or postoperative complications graded by CDC ( p = 0.53) and CCI ( p = 0.92). Conclusion: PB within 6 months preoperatively before HoLEP showed no effect on perioperative outcomes or intra- and postoperative complications.

Surgical approaches for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved and diversified over the past decades. While numerous studies document the efficacy of surgical procedures for moderate prostate sizes, there remains insufficient data for large prostate volumes >200 ml, leaving important questions unanswered regarding their effectiveness and safety. Consequently, selecting and adapting suitable therapeutic options for this specific patient group often poses a significant challenge. In this context, this review comprehensively summarizes and discusses current insights into surgical treatment options for large prostate volumes (>200 ml) following an extensive literature review.In summary, the surgical treatment of prostate volumes >200 ml is a challenge regardless of the chosen surgical method. Minimally invasive approaches should be considered standard practice today. Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is a size-independent method and has the lowest morbidity. As it may be performed in spinal anaesthesia, endoscopic enucleation is feasible in patients with an increased anaesthetic risk. In extremely large prostate glands, the procedure poses challenges even for highly experienced surgeons. Especially in obese patients, the surgeon should be familiar with different exit strategies. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy provides a minimally invasive alternative that may also treat pathologies such as diverticula or large bladder stones in the same surgical session. Due to its transabdominal approach, the morbidity and anaesthetic risk is comparatively higher. Each centre and surgeon should individually decide in which method they have the greatest expertise and which option is best suited for the specific case. In cases of limited expertise, it is advisable to refer patients to a centre with appropriate specialization., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

In En-Bloc Resection of Bladder Tumours (ERBT), tumours are not removed in fragments, but are dissected in one layer and, if possible, extracted in one piece. This method represents a significant shift in the surgical management of non-muscle-invasive bladder tumours, providing multiple benefits over the traditional transurethral resection of the bladder (TUR-B). The histological analysis of ERBT specimens is more accurate, enhancing diagnostic precision. Additionally, the presence of detrusor muscle in ERBT specimens is more frequent, indicating a more complete removal of the tumours. Recent years have seen the consolidation of a robust evidence base emphasizing the advantages of ERBT. Notably, a multicentric, prospective randomized trial has recently revealed a significant reduction in recurrence rates at 12 months follow-up compared with TUR-B. Experienced endourologists should explore this technique, as it may soon become the standard of care. The technique's elegance and effectiveness make it too important to be ignored., Competing Interests: JH ist Proctor und Consultant für Boston Scientific. CN ist Proctor und Consultant für Richard Wolf., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an established option in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pulse modulation, such as MOSES® technology, has recently been introduced and may offer potential advantages in HoLEP., Methods: Perioperative data from 117 patients who underwent MOSES® laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) were collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, age, body mass index (BMI), and anticoagulant intake was performed using a database of 237 patients treated with HoLEP. In total, 234 patients were included in the analysis., Results: Prostate volume (104 vs. 102 ml), age (70 vs. 71 years), BMI (27 vs. 27), and anticoagulant intake (34 vs. 35%) did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no significant differences in operation time (61.5 vs. 58.1 min, p = 0.42), enucleation efficiency (2.5 vs. 2.6 g/min, p = 0.74), hemostasis time (7.8 vs. 8 min, p = 0.75) and hemoglobin drop (0.9 vs. 0.7 mg/dl, p = 0.48). The complication rates were low in both groups (16.2% for HoLEP and 17.1% for MoLEP). No differences were noted in the Clavien-Dindo Classification (p = 0.63) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (p = 0.24). The rate of complications > CDC IIIa was 0.9% for HoLEP (endoscopic coagulation) and 1.7% for MoLEP (2 cases of endoscopic coagulation). No transfusions were administered., Conclusion: Overall, the enucleation efficiency was high in both groups and the procedure time was short. HoLEP is an efficient and safe treatment option in experienced hands, regardless of the use of pulse modulation technology., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Context: Partial nephrectomy (PN) with intraoperative guidance by biophotonics has the potential to improve surgical outcomes due to higher precision. However, its value remains unclear since high-level evidence is lacking., Objective: To provide a comprehensive analysis of biophotonic techniques used for intraoperative real-time assistance during PN., Evidence Acquisition: We performed a comprehensive database search based on the PICO criteria, including studies published before October 2022. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts followed by full-text screening of eligible studies. For a quantitative analysis, a meta-analysis was conducted., Evidence Synthesis: In total, 35 studies were identified for the qualitative analysis, including 27 studies on near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging using indocyanine green, four studies on hyperspectral imaging, two studies on folate-targeted molecular imaging, and one study each on optical coherence tomography and 5-aminolevulinic acid. The meta-analysis investigated seven studies on selective arterial clamping using NIRF. There was a significantly shorter warm ischemia time in the NIRF-PN group (mean difference [MD]: -2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.6, -0.1; p = 0.04). No differences were noted regarding transfusions (odds ratio [OR]: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.7; p = 0.27), positive surgical margins (OR: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.2, 2.0; p = 0.46), or major complications (OR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.2; p = 0.08). In the NIRF-PN group, functional results were favorable at short-term follow-up (MD of glomerular filtration rate decline: 7.6; 95% CI: 4.6, 10.5; p < 0.01), but leveled off at long-term follow-up (MD: 7.0; 95% CI: -2.8, 16.9; p = 0.16). Remarkably, these findings were not confirmed by the included randomized controlled trial., Conclusions: Biophotonics comprises a heterogeneous group of imaging modalities that serve intraoperative decision-making and guidance. Implementation into clinical practice and cost effectiveness are the limitations that should be addressed by future research., Patient Summary: We reviewed the application of biophotonics during partial removal of the kidney in patients with kidney cancer. Our results suggest that these techniques support the surgeon in successfully performing the challenging steps of the procedure., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study is aimed to determine whether postoperative low dose computed tomography (LDCT) imaging is necessary after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or the surgeon's intraoperative assessment of residual fragments (RF) is sufficient and avoidance of postoperative imaging with reduction of radiation exposure can be achieved. Data of all 610 patients who underwent PCNL in prone position in our institution from February 2009 to September 2020 was collected. Parameters such as age, gender, BMI, ASA-Classification, stone related parameters and the surgeon's assessment of stone-free status were analyzed. The LDCT performed postoperatively was compared to the intraoperative assessment of the surgeon regarding RF. The mean age of patients was 52.82 years; the mean BMI was 28.18 kg/m 2 . In 418 cases, the surgeon made a clear statement about the presence of RF and postoperative LDCT was carried out. The discrepancy between the two methods (surgeon´s assessment vs. LDCT) was significant at p < 0.0001. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of the surgeon when assessing RF were 24.05%, 99.45%, 98.28% and 50%. Stone free rate (SFR) after primary PCNL was 45.57%. The overall SFR at discharge was 96.23%. Although the surgeon´s assessment of RF was reliable, postoperative LDCT imaging should still be performed if endoscopic stone clearance is suspected due to the high false negative rate and the low negative predictive value. The optimal timing of postoperative imaging following PCNL remains unclear., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To compare software-based three-dimensional-guided systematic prostate biopsy (3D-GSB) with conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TGSB) regarding prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates (CDR)., Methods: In total, 956 patients (200 TGSB patients and 756 3D-GSB patients) without prior positive biopsies and with a prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were eligible for analysis. TGSB and 3D-GSB cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching with age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, previous biopsy status, and suspicious palpatory finding as confounders. 3D-GSB was conducted with the semi-robotic prostate fusion-biopsy system Artemis. For each patient in both groups, SB was conducted in a similar pattern with 12 cores. All cores in 3D-GSB were automatically planned and mapped on a 3D-model as well as on the real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging. Primary end points were the clinically significant (cs) and overall CDR. Secondary end point was the cancer-positive core rate., Results: After matching, the csCDR was not significantly different between the 3D-GSB and the TGSB groups (33.3% vs 28.8%, P = .385). Overall CDR was significantly higher for 3D-GSB compared to TGSB (55.6% vs 39.9%, P = .002). 3D-GSB detected significantly more non-significant PCa than TGSB (22.2% vs 11.1%, P = .004). In patients with PCa, the number of cancer-positive SB cores was significantly higher by TGSB (42% vs 25%, P < .001)., Conclusion: 3D-GSB was associated with a higher CDR than TGSB. However, no significant difference was shown in detection of csPCa between both techniques. Therefore, currently, 3D-GSB does not appear to add value to conventional TGSB., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare clinical safety and efficiency of Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for the treatment of large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia in a tertiary care center., Methods: Perioperative data of 39 patients who underwent RASP in our institution from 2015 to 2021 was collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, patient age, and body mass index (BMI) was performed from a database of 1,100 Patients treated by ThuLEP from 2009 to 2021. A total of 76 patients were matched. Preoperative parameters such as BMI, age, and prostate volume, as well as intra- and postoperative parameters such as operation time, resection weight, transfusion rate, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay (LoS), hemoglobin drop, postoperative urinary retention (PUR), Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC), and the Combined Complication Index (CCI), were evaluated., Results: There was no difference in mean hemoglobin drop (2.2 vs. 1.9 g/dL, p = 0.34), yet endoscopic surgery showed superiority in mean operation time (109 vs. 154 min, p &lt; 0.001), mean postoperative catheterization time (3.3 vs. 7.2 days, p &lt; 0.001), and mean LOS (5.4 vs. 8.4 days, p &lt; 0.001). Complication rates evaluated by CDC (p = 0.11) and CCI (p = 0.89) were similar in both groups. Within the documented complications, transfusion rate (0 vs. 3, p = 0.08) and the occurrence of PUR (1 vs. 2, p = 0.5) showed no significant difference., Conclusion: ThuLEP and RASP show similar perioperative efficacy and a low rate of complications. ThuLEP had shorter operation times, shorter catheterization time, and a shorter LoS., (© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is common in radical prostatectomy (RP). Yet there is no standard recommendation in international guidelines due to poor evidence. It is of great importance that these perioperative AP are sufficiently checked and systemically validated. The objective of this study was to determine whether a "single-shot" (single-use) perioperative AP yields equivalent results compared to a multiday prophylaxis in RP regarding postoperative wound infections and urinary tract infections., Methods: 376 patients treated by RP at the University Medical Centre Mannheim, from 2014 to 2016, were included in this retrospective study. RP was performed either in a robotic-assisted or open manner. One group received an intravenous dose of perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin, continued by an oral dose of AP with ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin until catheter removal, while the other group received a single-shot intravenous perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or cefuroxime., Results: There was no significant difference regarding the occurrence of postoperative infections between both AP regimes (p = 0.5). Age, body mass index, and ASA classification did not differ significantly between both groups (p > 0.25). Except for surgery time (p < 0.05), perioperative parameters, such as the preoperative presence of germ-free urine culture, length of hospital stay, catheter time, drain lay time, Gleason score, and TNM stadium, did not differ significantly., Conclusion: The present study shows that perioperative single-shot AP does not entail any disadvantage compared to the multiday AP in terms of postoperative infections after RP., (© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: First external validation of the Bladder Complexity Score (BCS) for predicting complex transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT)., Methods: For BCS calculation, TURBTs performed at our institution between January 2018 and December 2019 were reviewed for the presence of preoperative characteristics listed in the Bladder Complexity Checklist (BCC). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used for BCS validation. To establish a modified BCS (mBCS) with maximum area under the curve (AUC), multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed with all BCC-characteristics for different definitions of complex TURBT., Results: 723 TURBTs were included in statistical analyses. Cohort's mean BCS was 11.2 ± 2.4 points (range: 5.5-22 points). In ROC analysis, BCS could not predict complex TURBT (AUC 0.573 [95% CI: 0.517-0.628]). MLR identified tumour size (OR 2.662, p < 0.001), and tumour number > 10 (OR 6.390, p = 0.032) as sole predictors for the modified endpoint of complex TURBT defined as a procedure meeting > 1 criterion: incomplete resection, surgery > 1 h, intraoperative complication, postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo ≥ III. mBCS increased the prediction to an AUC of 0.770 (95% CI: 0.667-0.874)., Conclusion: In this first external validation, BCS remained an insufficient predictor of complex TURBT. mBCS requires reduced parameters, is more predictive and easier to apply in clinical practice., (© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: To evaluate perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, and the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in surgeons with experience in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). Materials and Methods: The learning curves for HoLEP of the first 50 consecutive patients of two surgeons experienced in ThuLEP were analyzed. In addition, demographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: Mean operation time was 70.9 ± 29.7 minutes (standard deviation) (Surgeon 1) and 74.4 ± 35.4 minutes (Surgeon 2), the mean enucleation efficiency was 1.5 ± 0.6 g/min (Surgeon 1) and 1.5 ± 0.7 g/min (Surgeon 2). The hemoglobin loss was 0.9 ± 0.8 and 0.8 ± 0.8 g/dL. For both surgeons, there was a significant learning curve in enucleation efficiency within the first 50 cases (Surgeon 1: p  = 0.034, Surgeon 2: p  = 0.006, both: p  = 0.0003, Spearman's ρ  = 0.351). Both surgeons started with an enucleation efficiency of around 1 g/min in their first 10 cases. No significant correlation between hemoglobin loss and experience could be found ( p  = 0.823, ρ  = 0.025). While there was no significant learning curve for morcellation efficiency ( p  = 0.785, ρ  = 0.028), a significant progress was found for one of the two surgeons regarding laser energy efficiency ( p  = 0.014). The overall incidence of all grade treatment-related AEs was low at 10.0%, and extremely low for significant complications with Clavien-Dindo Grade >II at 1%. Conclusions: In our analysis, switching to HoLEP is uncomplicated and safe for experienced ThuLEP surgeons. The enucleation efficiency was high from the beginning, but a learning curve was present for both surgeons. No learning curve was noticeable in hemoglobin loss and the incidence of complications, both of which were low throughout the study.

Context: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are two minimally invasive alternatives to simple prostatectomy, which is considered the standard treatment in large prostate glands. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications. Objective: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of RASP vs EEP. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. The database search included clinicaltrials.gov, Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, and Web of Science and was using the PICO criteria. All comparative trials were considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised ROBINS-I tool. Evidence Synthesis: Seven hundred sixty studies were identified, 4 of which were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 901 patients with follow-up up to 24 months. Hemoglobin drop (mean difference [MD] confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 g/dL [0.09-0.58]), the rate of blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR] [CI]: 5.01 [1.60-15.61]) catheterization time (MD [CI]: 3.26 days [1.30-5.23]), and length of hospital stay (LoS) (MD [CI]: 1.94 days [1.11-2.76]) were significantly lower in EEP. No significant differences were seen in operating time and enucleation weight. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of postoperative urinary retention, postoperative transient incontinence, and complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Functional results were similar, with no significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate at follow-up. Conclusion: Both EEP and RASP offer excellent improvement of symptoms due to prostatic hyperplasia. EEP has lower blood loss, shorter catheterization time, and LoS and should be the first choice if available. RASP remains an attractive alternative for extremely large glands, in concomitant diseases, or whenever EEP is not available. Review Registration Number (PROSPERO): CRD42021226901.

Context: Holmium (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) are the two methods most commonly applied for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications., Objective: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes between HoLEP and ThuLEP., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. A comprehensive database search including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL was conducted according to the PICO criteria. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. All review steps were conducted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for RCTs., Evidence Synthesis: The search identified 556 studies, of which four were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 579 patients with follow-up of up to 18 months. No significant differences in operating time, enucleation weight, catheterization time, or hospital stay were observed between ThuLEP and HoLEP. The decrease in hemoglobin was significantly lower for ThuLEP (mean difference -0.54 g/dl, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.93 to -0.15; p < 0.001), but with low certainty of evidence. Transient urinary incontinence was more common for HoLEP (odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.99; p = 0.045), again with low certainty of evidence. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for other complications or for functional measures and symptom scores., Conclusions: ThuLEP and HoLEP offer comparable improvement in symptoms and postoperative voiding parameters. Both procedures are safe and major complications are rare. ThuLEP showed minor advantages for blood loss and the incidence of transient incontinence. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the low certainty of evidence. Therefore, treatment choice should be based on surgeon expertise and local conditions., Patient Summary: We reviewed four clinical trials that compared holmium and thulium lasers for treatment to reduce the size of the prostate gland. Our review assessed outcomes and complications. We found that both laser techniques are safe and suitable for reducing symptoms due to an enlarged prostate. Blood loss and short-lasting urinary incontinence were slightly lower after thulium compared to holmium laser treatment., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)